There are a number of separate strands at work here.
In terms of land which can be developed (classified as being able to be developed), the mark up on land having planning permission for residential redevelopment is substantial (tenfold at least if not more in town centres). Getting planning permission isn't always easy or cheap and some landowners might choose to sell on that risk (called taking the money and running).
Those who stay the course can reap the dividends but of course looking after and securing development land isn't cost free.
The other side of this is "green belt" land - the first thing that needs to happen is for the land to undergo a change of use which a local authority can do via the Local Plan. That has to go through a consultation process as normally all you can do on greenbelt land is build recreational facilities such as cricket pavilions or 19th holes etc.
Once the change of use is approved, then it's all systems go for resi redevelopment within the densities agreed in the local plan. I know some on loathe Planning with a healthy passion but the Local Plan is one of the most important documents produced by any council as it sets the framework for permitted development within an area.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
One of the podcasts I listen to is The Expert Factor (Paul Johnson of the IFS, Hannah White of IofG and Anand Menon from UK in a Changing Europe). I recent episode was on Housing with Toby Lloyd as a guest expert.
1. To unleash a wave of New Civic Housebuilding across England: • Masterplan new high quality suburbs, urban regenerations and settlements. Give city-regions and combined authorities the power to create New Home Zones where land can be bought at its existing use value plus a compensation. – New Home Zones should be included as form of nationally significant infrastructure under the NSIP regime. – Compensation for landowners under the 1961 Land Compensation Act should be amended to reduce the cost of land in these schemes to a level which reflects its existing use value plus compensation. – Section 106 and CIL should not apply to these sites, as they will have planned in the use of the planning gain from the start. - Deliver these new communities through development vehicles, such as Development Corporations, with powers of land acquisition and assembly. The Corporations will act as master- developer: giving landowners the opportunity to invest their land as equity, putting in basic infrastructure, and selling serviced plots to local builders, housing associations, self-builders, Build to Rent providers and others. - Allow Neighbourhood Exception Sites to be allocated in Neighbourhood Plans, based on the rural exception site model, for small housing sites not already allocated in the Local Plan. Neighbourhood Fora could specify aspects of design for the sites, and they would have to provide as many permanently affordable homes as possible. Neighbourhood Exception Sites should be allowed on green belt sites with no environmental protection status. • Public land should be invested into partnerships to deliver both long term revenues for the public sector and high quality, locally affordable housing schemes, rather than being sold for the highest price to speculative developers.
I think the weak one there is "Neighbourhood Exception Sites", as Neighbourhood plans are a bit NIMYB often. That I think would need some work on it.
I'd prefer something more towards organic growth of communities to be expected at a modest rate.
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
I guess this means no torrent of posts on this one from Leon. Phew indeed! That would have been hard yards.
There are further, more complicating details - ignored by this tweet - but as I am a master of restraint and also do not want to be banned, I shall spare you
Master of restraint - often cuffed Not wanting to be banned - Last chance Sparing us - the noisy bastard that wrecks an afternoon
On the land purchase thing. There, *already* in a law, the ability for a Council to ask the Sec. State to reduce/eliminate the estimated gain for planning permission in the case of projects involving education, social housing or health. For a compulsory purchase.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
I worked out (using Jenrick's maths, which may be dodgy) that one year of arrivals at this rate costs us £106 BILLION over their lifetimes, As these numbers keep coming year after year that literally means £100 BILLION a year
The country will utterly collapse, financially, in a few years, unless the boats are stopped, if this maths is halfway accurate
I feel like I've been hearing about pubs closing in numbers my entire adult life. I'm sure it is true, and there were just that many pubs around previously, but it doesn't really have an impact. It's nice to have them, people may regret losing quite so many, but is it a tragedy if people enjoy doing other things?
I can say that I used to pass 6 pubs on my 1 mile journey home, and now I pass 3 (2 have been turned into housing, the third is seeking to be turned into housing).
Things change, peoples habits evolve. Music Hall died out, other social events died out. No, it’s not a tragedy, sad for the businesses impacted but others will emerge.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
Sorry mate - but the very first comment I made was CPO at 150% of the value of the land to allow the farmer to move elsewhere if he wanted to.
I'm not saying steal for zero (as is common in India / China) I'm suggesting that the deal should be structured in a way where the farmer is paid for his inconvenience but not enough that he can retire to the Caribbean on the profits...
Another sign that he is rattled. He can't afford to be off the main site for political chat and ludicrous memes
It is an interesting move - his Truths or whatever his posts on his own network are called get shared all over the place by others, but even with a desire to suck up to Musk he must believe he is not reaching enough of his own fans on his own anymore.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
Crudely, it's all about a number, isn't it?
The ratio between the value of pure farmland and farmland with planning permission is massive at the moment. That gap is one of the things gumming up the building of houses.
According to Wikipedia, the first generation of New Towns nabbed all that differential, which paid for the infrastructure. At present, the owner of the land (who may or may not be the farmer) gets a very large slice- possibly so large that most developments can't happen and so the land stays as farmland.
Question is whether there's a fraction somewhere between those two limits that serves everyone better. Personally, I'd be surprised if there wasn't.
This is why I quoted the French system at 1.5x the value and someone else (apologies I forget who) mentioned between 1.5 and 2x the market value. That seems reasonable to me.
What does not seem reasonable is taking away land from someone and removing their source of income without proper compensation.
Actually this is not the worst of it. The real bad one (which is slightly off topic but still related) is the current situation that if you have a nice house worth, say, £500K and the Government decide to take it away, you get market value and a compensation of only £15K on top - which probably won't even cover your moving costs.
Again it seems to me that in this instance, as in so many others, the French have it right.
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
One of the things that I think aims to be undermined is the ability of big developers with a portfolio of proposals, and serious advisers, and many options, to shaft landowners who do not have large portfolios of land, and play planning chess with Councils.
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
Interesting you say that planning permission has a time limit. Not on the jobs I have been concerned with it doesn't. I know of companies sitting on land for a decade or more with planning permission and not having any time limit on it. All they had to do to say works had started was put a drop kerb in at the roadside.
Much as I decry NIMBYs among the public and government at all levels, the developers do have their own ways of gumming things up and taking the piss, and that is one of them. There needs to be more incentive to get on and build, and that includes teeth like taking it away if it has not in any practical sense begun - if you legitimately are unable to or the market is not there for it, tough luck, you can renew it later.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
Addressing our housing crisis (with action not just words) is both popular and right imo.
But it's not addressing our housing crisis, is it? It's one small part, and one whose effects might be achievable in other ways.
As I said below, if the government put a caveat in that this was only targeted at speculators (by saying the sale had to be within the last decade or two), I'd be happier. Oh, and that would not include inheritance in families.
Would you be against that?
It certainly is addressing it. Getting land that's being sat on by speculators (many gaming the system) into development for affordable homes will make big inroads into our housing shortage. It's not a marginal issue.
As to the detail, sure let's see. There's a balance to be struck. This is the UK we're talking about here. However I'd hope and expect that a Labour government wouldn't bend too far towards private landowners at the expense of the common good.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
In my experience, not so much unless massive gym/fitness freaks or for religious reasons.
Otherwise GenZ tuck in like everyone else in my experience.
Went out for a drink on Friday and every pub in Camden and Kentish Town was rammed. Primrose Hill, as ever, offered blissful and tranquil oases
It's weird how Primrose Hill pubs don't get jammed, despite being lovely, whereas pubs 8 minutes away are grim and chocka. Something to do with it being hidden away behind the hill and the railways
Either way, no sign in this part of North London of pubs doing badly
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
I worked out (using Jenrick's maths, which may be dodgy) that one year of arrivals at this rate costs us £106 BILLION over their lifetimes, As these numbers keep coming year after year that literally means £100 BILLION a year
The country will utterly collapse, financially, in a few years, unless the boats are stopped, if this maths is halfway accurate
One of the things that I think aims to be undermined is the ability of big developers with a portfolio of proposals, and serious advisers, and many options, to shaft landowners who do not have large portfolios of land, and play planning chess with Councils.
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
Interesting you say that planning permission has a time limit. Not on the jobs I have been concerned with it doesn't. I know of companies sitting on land for a decade or more with planning permission and not having any time limit on it. All they had to do to say works had started was put a drop kerb in at the roadside.
Much as I decry NIMBYs among the public and government at all levels, the developers do have their own ways of gumming things up and taking the piss, and that is one of them. There needs to be more incentive to get on and build, and that includes teeth like taking it away if it has not in any practical sense begun - if you legitimately are unable to or the market is not there for it, tough luck, you can renew it later.
Charge double council tax on the development from one year after planning permission is given, based on what’s supposed to be under construction.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
The French have cracked down on the boats - which is why we are now seeing the deaths as 2/3 groups of people descend on the boat to try and force their people on to it...
You do know that Rwanda were only going to accept 200 people a year? It really wasn't a disincentive beyond not taking the first x boats in a year.
In my experience, not so much unless massive gym/fitness freaks or for religious reasons.
Otherwise GenZ tuck in like everyone else in my experience.
Went out for a drink on Friday and every pub in Camden and Kentish Town was rammed. Primrose Hill, as ever, offered blissful and tranquil oases
It's weird how Primrose Hill pubs don't get jammed, despite being lovely, whereas pubs 8 minutes away are grim and chocka. Something to do with it being hidden away behind the hill and the railways
Either way, no sign in this part of North London of pubs doing badly
Have a chat with the owners of the Albert then. (For those that don't know it's a wonderful old pub in Primrose Hill that has had recent renovation works)
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Couple of years from now SKS will probably throw you in the clink for posting this
In my experience, not so much unless massive gym/fitness freaks or for religious reasons.
Otherwise GenZ tuck in like everyone else in my experience.
Went out for a drink on Friday and every pub in Camden and Kentish Town was rammed. Primrose Hill, as ever, offered blissful and tranquil oases
It's weird how Primrose Hill pubs don't get jammed, despite being lovely, whereas pubs 8 minutes away are grim and chocka. Something to do with it being hidden away behind the hill and the railways
Either way, no sign in this part of North London of pubs doing badly
Have a chat with the owners of the Albert then. (For those that don't know it's a wonderful old pub in Primrose Hill that has had recent renovation works)
I was in the Albert! I love it, oh no. Is it in trouble??
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
The French have cracked down on the boats - which is why we are now seeing the deaths as 2/3 groups of people descend on the boat to try and force their people on to it...
You do know that Rwanda were only going to accept 200 people a year? It really wasn't a disincentive beyond not taking the first x boats in a year.
200 spaces a year. Those 200 would have absconded immediately, leaving 200 spaces again. And so forth. Come to the UK by boat, go to Rwanda, have to do the whole thing again - stop coming.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
One of the things that I think aims to be undermined is the ability of big developers with a portfolio of proposals, and serious advisers, and many options, to shaft landowners who do not have large portfolios of land, and play planning chess with Councils.
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
Interesting you say that planning permission has a time limit. Not on the jobs I have been concerned with it doesn't. I know of companies sitting on land for a decade or more with planning permission and not having any time limit on it. All they had to do to say works had started was put a drop kerb in at the roadside.
Assuming what it was like a few years ago...
Proving start of development is more tricky than it was.
But land coming forward is a disaggregated process, and the land owner will not do all of it.
There is Outline (with matters reserved) and Detailed. We sold ours with all matters reserved except the entrance road junction design, which went on a house we had kept for it to go through.
Land coming forward for development will typically have Outline (as any developer will have eg their own range of house designs and ways of doing everything) which *does* expire after 2 or 3 years. You can't "start development" on an Outline Permission (afaik), which just proves the site is accepted with 10 or so reports, and is to de-risk for the purchaser.
You *can* extend it by 2 years more if you put in a detailed application - but that then means the landowner has to pay for a shedload of detailed design work that won't be used. And if you don't get a yes on the detailed you are then really in a mess.
But then the Council will want another set of assessment fees, and there may be another 50-100% of professional fees.
And to lock it in there will be a whole portfolio of "Pre Start" conditions which have to be met, and possibly some things built, and accepted as met by the Council.
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
Why shouldn't he follow a porn star on X if he wants? The Puritanism these days is getting ridiculous - It will only get worse with the ultimate Puritan, SKS, in charge for the next five years
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Same sort of numbers as this time last year. No evidence, yet, that Rwanda in of itself makes any difference to the numbers one way or the other. Rwanda had other issues and the best that could said of it is that it didn't work.
The new government hasn't had time yet to address the previous government's negligence in not processing asylum seekers.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
Hang on - all she is doing there was removing a policy that wasn't going to work with 1 that has a chance of working...
Now I know that isn't how it's being reported but the long term British residents criteria hasn't been tested in law and the advice was that it wouldn't stand up...
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
Why shouldn't he follow a porn star on X if he wants? The Puritanism these days is getting ridiculous - It will only get worse with the ultimate Puritan, SKS, in charge for the next five years
I know, I would have thought Puritans like Starmer would approve of the black and white people loving each other.
One of my friends told me they were interracial porn stars, I didn't believe him, but he showed me the photos, and there he was, black in white.
I'm all for pointing out that governments overuse the 'blame the last lot' excuse, even 10 years into power in some cases, but I don't think there will be much traction criticising the excuse a month in, even when it would be deserved.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
Mid way through a second term?
lol. Quite possible
I honestly don't understand why anyone with options would willingly pay taxes to this government knowing that they are just gonna spunk it - £100 billion a year- on housing asylum seekers they actually seem KEEN to entice
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
Hang on - all she is doing there was removing a policy that wasn't going to work with 1 that has a chance of working...
Now I know that isn't how it's being reported but the long term British residents criteria hasn't been tested in law and the advice was that it wouldn't stand up...
Why would it not stand up? Let me guess, the ECHR?
I'm all for pointing out that governments overuse the 'blame the last lot' excuse, even 10 years into power in some cases, but I don't think there will be much traction criticising the excuse a month in, even when it would be deserved.
If you speak English, your comments will have more impact
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
I'm all for pointing out that governments overuse the 'blame the last lot' excuse, even 10 years into power in some cases, but I don't think there will be much traction criticising the excuse a month in, even when it would be deserved.
If you speak English, your comments will have more impact
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
Why shouldn't he follow a porn star on X if he wants? The Puritanism these days is getting ridiculous - It will only get worse with the ultimate Puritan, SKS, in charge for the next five years
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Ukraine military chief in Kursk says that his army are now holding around 1,000 sq km of Russian territory in the region, following more progress made over the weekend. Russian officials are hurriedly evacuating tens of thousands of civilians.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Depends what you want to do the comparison for.
If it's to actually understand the situation, of course you have to consider the weather.
If, for some reason, you want to work yourself into a fury, then of course you will pick the combination of numbers that helps you to increase your blood pressure.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
I'm not sure I particularly like Jenrick, and I'm not sure he's a particularly nice person, but he's the only one talking about this.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
Ukraine military chief in Kursk says that his army are now holding around 1,000 sq km of Russian territory in the region, following more progress made over the weekend. Russian officials are hurriedly evacuating tens of thousands of civilians.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
I totally agree with that.
Except: a) it's too many IMV. b) It's an argument that should be used when talking about the previous government as well.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
I think you're half right. Labour gets more slack on this issue because:
1) No one expects Labour to be tough on migration 2) It has already been a high profile issue, so it's not as newsworthy as it used to be (eg the big surge in Albanians happened a couple of years ago) 3) They haven't made reducing the boats the main sole objective of the government.
If Badenoch gets to the Conservative membership polls of members suggest she likely wins but given she only came 4th amongst Tory MPs in 2022 I think that unlikely. Indeed some ERG support has already shifted to Jenrick and Patel will get a bit too despite he more moderate recent stance. Jenrick seems to be members second preference so likely wins otherwise.
Stride as a Rishi loyalist will likely pick up much of the Sunak loyalist vote, he will also pick up some of the One Nation liberal wing though most of that will go to Tugendhat. Cleverly I expect to pick up some of the Mordaunt vote from last time.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
Addressing our housing crisis (with action not just words) is both popular and right imo.
But it's not addressing our housing crisis, is it? It's one small part, and one whose effects might be achievable in other ways.
As I said below, if the government put a caveat in that this was only targeted at speculators (by saying the sale had to be within the last decade or two), I'd be happier. Oh, and that would not include inheritance in families.
Would you be against that?
It certainly is addressing it. Getting land that's being sat on by speculators (many gaming the system) into development for affordable homes will make big inroads into our housing shortage. It's not a marginal issue.
As to the detail, sure let's see. There's a balance to be struck. This is the UK we're talking about here. However I'd hope and expect that a Labour government wouldn't bend too far towards private landowners at the expense of the common good.
Again, you are assuming it is all 'speculators'.
On zero evidence.
I'd love to see your reaction when the 'common good' goes against your own interests...
Another sign that he is rattled. He can't afford to be off the main site for political chat and ludicrous memes
Probably part of the Elon Musk interviews Donald Trump deal is a return to TwiX.
Musk is no fool. He'll dump Trump.
Once he has no use for him. Currently, he does - whilst Trump may not do gratitude generally, if he wins the White House Musk can expect some beneficial return on investment.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Depends what you want to do the comparison for.
If it's to actually understand the situation, of course you have to consider the weather.
If, for some reason, you want to work yourself into a fury, then of course you will pick the combination of numbers that helps you to increase your blood pressure.
++++
This year so far, crossings look set to match or exceed the previous record year, 2022, so it really is increasing
A Tory MS who was following a porn star famous for explicit interracial videos has blamed it on an 'accidental click' or 'compromise' of his social media account
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
I'm not sure I particularly like Jenrick, and I'm not sure he's a particularly nice person, but he's the only one talking about this.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
Your views blow in the wind. Jenrick the has-to-be-reported, or Jenrick the inconsequential.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
The 'rich speculators' is a red herring. The majority of people the councils will be stealing from will be long-term farmers.
*If* the government put a caveat on their plans like: "Any land that has been sold in the last ten years..." then I'd be more ready to accept it. But it doesn't sound as if they have. and have put the 'speculators' line in to make it sound more acceptable.
I dont really care who it is going to. If a government planning policy change creates a windfall in the tens of billions, I prefer the government getting most of that windfall. It is just common sense. The landowners will still be better off than if the change didn't happen.
They are getting *all* the windfall. And the vast majority of the 'windfall' is not in the land value.
And as I've pointed out below, the landowners are *not* better off if the CPO value does not have any extra for the inconvenience.
But 'you don't care'. Because you are not affected.
I'm not affected either, but I can see beyond selfish interests such as yours.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Are you thick?
No, but I will concede that you're the most well placed judge of such things.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
What reports was there when 711 arrived on 1st May 2024? Can you find even equal the amount of coverage? Even better, post when you mentioned it on here?
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
I'm not sure I particularly like Jenrick, and I'm not sure he's a particularly nice person, but he's the only one talking about this.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
I've long been at that position because I long ago realised we would, inevitably, end here. And so it is
If the crossings continue as they are, or even worsen, we will go bankrupt. We cannot house and feed them all, nor can we simply wave them in and give them all asylum and let them work, because then even more will come, that will be a huge pull factor, and hundreds of millions are on the move
The only choice is your naval route, or something like Rwanda. Neither is easy, neither is pretty, but the eventual alternative will be even worse
It might reassure Casino Royale a bit. 700 is a lot in one day but the previous 4 days brought 0,0,0 and 0 after a couple of days in the low hundreds. 700 a day is not the average, and it’s peak calm sea, warm weather crossing season.
700 is more like the weekly total in summer. In the week to 4 August there were 713 arrivals and 758 “prevented”, so the UK and French border forces aren’t just sitting on their arses.
There is a longer excel time series back to 2018 you can download. This summer’s arrivals so far (since the election) look similar to July/August 2023 and lower than 2022, but that’s just eyeballing so someone can run regressions on the numbers if they fancy.
In 2022 there were 6 days with arrivals over 1,000 people.
Note that in previous years crossings continued at high numbers into Sept and Oct so we are by no means near the end of the boat season yet.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
You see, whenever you post something ad-hominemy like this then I know you're on edge: the migrants deaths have got coverage, but the numbers outside reliably right-wing publications like The Mail and the Telegraph.
And I know you've just gone googling and searching for them both. The leitmotif here is you want to brush the problem off and then go back to talking about other stuff.
If you have moderate right-wingers like me worried about this stuff, and starting to be drawn to firmer measures, then you know you've got a problem.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
I think you're half right. Labour gets more slack on this issue because:
1) No one expects Labour to be tough on migration 2) It has already been a high profile issue, so it's not as newsworthy as it used to be (eg the big surge in Albanians happened a couple of years ago) 3) They haven't made reducing the boats the main sole objective of the government.
But a few more months of surging numbers and the issue will overwhelm them as it did the Tories, by this time next year I expect HMG to be in crisis mode over this, at best it will take two years
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
I worked out (using Jenrick's maths, which may be dodgy) that one year of arrivals at this rate costs us £106 BILLION over their lifetimes, As these numbers keep coming year after year that literally means £100 BILLION a year
The country will utterly collapse, financially, in a few years, unless the boats are stopped, if this maths is halfway accurate
"if"
That if is lifting more than Bruce Willis in Unbreakable.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
What do you do for the affected people who are *not* property speculators?
They sold out to the property speculator. They did OK. My acquaintance isn't the Mafia.
????
I'm talking about people who own land who did not sell out to speculators.
I know a fair few people who are in that position, and who are not rich. Many farmers are not, you know, even when they own their land.
They are not necessarily rich, but I'm not sure what your point is. That if they haven't sold out individual farmers should be able to claim a windfall of many times what the land is worth but professional speculators not?
Yes. Because they're actually farming the land. I hate to tell you this, but farming is good for the country; both in terms of food supply and land management - which nowadays is rightly highly regulated.
Let's imagine a massive resource is found on someone's land - not under, but on. Should they get zero compensation if the state decides to grab that resource?
And that's what we're talking about here: zero compensation.
I wonder how you would feel if your house was CPO'd by the council, and you only got the value of the house (with planning blight...) and nothing for the inconvenience and heartache that moving would cause you.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Absurdly dismissive and complacent.
Well, its a view I suppose, but I disagree. I think my post was reasonable and grounded in a degree of logic. But you're free to differ.
First. If Jenrick gets through to the final two, he will win.
Could be close with the members if it's Jenrick v Badenoch.
I can see it being Jenrick or Badenoch v Cleverly and more likely Jenrick or Badenoch v Tugendhat or even Jenrick or Badenoch v Stride.
However Jenrick v Badenoch is very unlikely as they are both competing for the support of the ERG right of the party and only one of them will therefore likely get to the last 2.
Poor Priti seems to now have abandoned trying to get the ERG vote while still being too rightwing for the liberal One Nation wing who are rallying behind Tugendhat and Stride and who also prefer Cleverly to her
If Badenoch gets to the Conservative membership polls of members suggest she likely wins but given she only came 4th amongst Tory MPs in 2022 I think that unlikely. Indeed some ERG support has already shifted to Jenrick and Patel will get a bit too despite he more moderate recent stance. Jenrick seems to be members second preference so likely wins otherwise.
Stride as a Rishi loyalist will likely pick up much of the Sunak loyalist vote, he will also pick up some of the One Nation liberal wing though most of that will go to Tugendhat. Cleverly I expect to pick up some of the Mordaunt vote from last time.
4th behind Sunak, Truss, and Mordaunt. I get what you say that those who backed them might split away from Badenoch, but seems like she has a decent shot still.
IDK, as an outsider Jenrick seems like he has the clearest message on needing to do things differently, having been out of government at the most senior level for 3 years. Kemi, Cleverly and Stride are all competing for the continuity of the last clique vote, as is Tugendhat despite not being very senior, and Patel's latest message is muddying the waters there too.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
I'm not sure I particularly like Jenrick, and I'm not sure he's a particularly nice person, but he's the only one talking about this.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
I've long been at that position because I long ago realised we would, inevitably, end here. And so it is
If the crossings continue as they are, or even worsen, we will go bankrupt. We cannot house and feed them all, nor can we simply wave them in and give them all asylum and let them work, because then even more will come, that will be a huge pull factor, and hundreds of millions are on the move
The only choice is your naval route, or something like Rwanda. Neither is easy, neither is pretty, but the eventual alternative will be even worse
It's horrible but, just as we accept civilian casualties as an unfortunate side effect of irregular conflict, I think we have to brace ourselves to take all reasonable measures to avoid them but accept stopping the boats will come at a cost as well.
I don't think there's a legally pure or totally safe way of closing this down. And it pains me to say that.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
I think you're half right. Labour gets more slack on this issue because:
1) No one expects Labour to be tough on migration 2) It has already been a high profile issue, so it's not as newsworthy as it used to be (eg the big surge in Albanians happened a couple of years ago) 3) They haven't made reducing the boats the main sole objective of the government.
To invert this, Labour are now extremely vulnerable on housing costs:
1) Everyone now expects Labour to build homes and bring costs down 2) Home building at any scale is very unlikely to happen unless there is a post-war style splurge on council housing 3) Even if there is massive development, the shape of the demand curve for homes will mean there is only a marginal impact on costs, and building on the green belt won't change the underlying regional imbalances that make inner-city living so expensive for young people
It might reassure Casino Royale a bit. 700 is a lot in one day but the previous 4 days brought 0,0,0 and 0 after a couple of days in the low hundreds. 700 a day is not the average, and it’s peak calm sea, warm weather crossing season.
700 is more like the weekly total in summer. In the week to 4 August there were 713 arrivals and 758 “prevented”, so the UK and French border forces aren’t just sitting on their arses.
There is a longer excel time series back to 2018 you can download. This summer’s arrivals so far (since the election) look similar to July/August 2023 and lower than 2022, but that’s just eyeballing so someone can run regressions on the numbers if they fancy.
In 2022 there were 6 days with arrivals over 1,000 people.
Note that in previous years crossings continued at high numbers into Sept and Oct so we are by no means near the end of the boat season yet.
So far, 2024 is closely following 2022, which was the record year, with 45,000 crossings. It looks like we could match or exceed it this year, it will surely be close
We had some success in getting the numbers down in 2023 largely because we returned Albanians to Albania, after an agreement, AIUI. But now that effect has faded away as others have replaced them
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Are you thick?
No, but I will concede that you're the most well placed judge of such things.
You've suggested, at the same time, that this might be a figment of Jenrick's imagination and managed to spectacularly miss the point at the same time. Either you're doing this deliberately to insult my intelligence, or you're thick.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Because it is seasonal - nothing to go with Rwanda, everything to do with the weather, which was remarkably conducive to crossings yesterday and, indeed, in summer in general. Only annualised comparisons will give a true picture. 872 arrivals were recorded on 2 September 2023 for example. Correlation isn't causation but, if you're going down that route, an annualised comparison is better.
Absurdly dismissive and complacent.
Well, its a view I suppose, but I disagree. I think my post was reasonable and grounded in a degree of logic. But you're free to differ.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
Any evidence that it's Rwanda that is the issue here.
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
Great, so they've cracked it? They've bought up all the boats in Europe, and we can expect the crossings to stop any day now?
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
There's lots that prospective economic migrants are delighted Starmer is in power. With a Home Secretary who posed with a t-shirt saying #refugeeswelcome. Then you had the migrants who delayed crossing, or wanted to move to Ireland, to avoid deportation under Rwanda. Now, they know there's no risk.
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
I'm not sure I particularly like Jenrick, and I'm not sure he's a particularly nice person, but he's the only one talking about this.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
I've long been at that position because I long ago realised we would, inevitably, end here. And so it is
If the crossings continue as they are, or even worsen, we will go bankrupt. We cannot house and feed them all, nor can we simply wave them in and give them all asylum and let them work, because then even more will come, that will be a huge pull factor, and hundreds of millions are on the move
The only choice is your naval route, or something like Rwanda. Neither is easy, neither is pretty, but the eventual alternative will be even worse
It's horrible but, just as we accept civilian casualties as an unfortunate side effect of irregular conflict, I think we have to brace ourselves to take all reasonable measures to avoid them but accept stopping the boats will come at a cost as well.
I don't think there's a legally pure or totally safe way of closing this down. And it pains me to say that.
Yes, it's horrific, but remember it is horrific already. People die in the Channel all the time. And even more die crossing the Med
The humane thing is to stop the boats at source, so no one bothers - and no one dies. But that means being quite tough, if only for a while. Like the Aussies
Honestly, Labour are hopeless. They've had over a month now to STOP THE BOATS, and yet they're still coming.
In reality, Labour is doing what it said it would do - quietly working away on solutions that will obviously take time to come to fruition. Personally I'm delighted it's making less news now - who didn't get sick of the constant STOP THE BOATS rhetoric in the tabloids, and the painfully inept salvation of 'Rwanda' as the solution?
I suspect many people are hoping for a period of calm, non-shouty government in which ministers take a more serious-minded approach to resolving the myriad of problems we have and, hopefully, deliver better results than the previous useless bunch.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Or 882 on the 18 June this year; 711 on 1 May; 534 on 14 April. Etc
Indeed.
Surely it is a tribute to Brexit that so many people want to flee the EU?
Rwanda is better than the EU. That's why so many were risking the crossing under the previous government. Imagine their disappointment now it's been cancelled.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
You see, whenever you post something ad-hominemy like this then I know you're on edge: the migrants deaths have got coverage, but the numbers outside reliably right-wing publications like The Mail and the Telegraph.
And I know you've just gone googling and searching for them both. The leitmotif here is you want to brush the problem off and then go back to talking about other stuff.
If you have moderate right-wingers like me worried about this stuff, and starting to be drawn to firmer measures, then you know you've got a problem.
You've got a problem.
I'm not really on the edge, the reality this was a problem before Starmer became PM and people will give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit.
You're on much stronger ground on criticising him for his other policies like VAT on school fees.
Parents scramble to find state school places to avoid VAT on fees
With tax on private school fees set to increase costs by 20 per cent from January next year, parents are struggling to find alternatives
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Are you thick?
No, but I will concede that you're the most well placed judge of such things.
You've suggested, at the same time, that this might be a figment of Jenrick's imagination and managed to spectacularly miss the point at the same time. Either you're doing this deliberately to insult my intelligence, or you're thick.
Which one is it?
I suggest you work on your reading skills. You've obviously misread spectacularly.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
You see, whenever you post something ad-hominemy like this then I know you're on edge: the migrants deaths have got coverage, but the numbers outside reliably right-wing publications like The Mail and the Telegraph.
And I know you've just gone googling and searching for them both. The leitmotif here is you want to brush the problem off and then go back to talking about other stuff.
If you have moderate right-wingers like me worried about this stuff, and starting to be drawn to firmer measures, then you know you've got a problem.
You've got a problem.
I'm not really on the edge, the reality this was a problem before Starmer became PM and people will give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit.
You're on much stronger ground on criticising him for his other policies like VAT on school fees.
Parents scramble to find state school places to avoid VAT on fees
With tax on private school fees set to increase costs by 20 per cent from January next year, parents are struggling to find alternatives
If you've followed my posts, and I hope I don't flatter myself too much when I suggest you might have an inkling, you will have noted I've both criticised his attacks on aspirational Britain and on controlling the borders.
It's part of my thesis of how his coalition could collapse from both sides very quickly - like that horrible Titantic sub disaster- resulting in him being a one-term PM.
If Badenoch gets to the Conservative membership polls of members suggest she likely wins but given she only came 4th amongst Tory MPs in 2022 I think that unlikely. Indeed some ERG support has already shifted to Jenrick and Patel will get a bit too despite he more moderate recent stance. Jenrick seems to be members second preference so likely wins otherwise.
Stride as a Rishi loyalist will likely pick up much of the Sunak loyalist vote, he will also pick up some of the One Nation liberal wing though most of that will go to Tugendhat. Cleverly I expect to pick up some of the Mordaunt vote from last time.
4th behind Sunak, Truss, and Mordaunt. I get what you say that those who backed them might split away from Badenoch, but seems like she has a decent shot still.
IDK, as an outsider Jenrick seems like he has the clearest message on needing to do things differently, having been out of government at the most senior level for 3 years. Kemi, Cleverly and Stride are all competing for the continuity of the last clique vote, as is Tugendhat despite not being very senior, and Patel's latest message is muddying the waters there too.
Jenrick would be a clear shift right relative to Sunak and Hunt yes. Stride would be no change and even a shift left, Tugendhat would be no change and again arguably a shift left. Cleverly would be little different to Sunak. Patel would have been a shift right but now seems to be shifting back to Sunakism and even against leaving the EHCR. Badenoch would also be a shift right so she is competing with Jenrick to get MPs who want that behind her
It might reassure Casino Royale a bit. 700 is a lot in one day but the previous 4 days brought 0,0,0 and 0 after a couple of days in the low hundreds. 700 a day is not the average, and it’s peak calm sea, warm weather crossing season.
700 is more like the weekly total in summer. In the week to 4 August there were 713 arrivals and 758 “prevented”, so the UK and French border forces aren’t just sitting on their arses.
There is a longer excel time series back to 2018 you can download. This summer’s arrivals so far (since the election) look similar to July/August 2023 and lower than 2022, but that’s just eyeballing so someone can run regressions on the numbers if they fancy.
In 2022 there were 6 days with arrivals over 1,000 people.
Note that in previous years crossings continued at high numbers into Sept and Oct so we are by no means near the end of the boat season yet.
Exactly this. The numbers probably aren't particularly up or down compared with before the change of government. Which is what you would expect.
Labour will own this problem going forward. Given the previous governments utter negligence they have at least a possibility of doing better.
Boat crossings have massively taken off since Starmer came to office and scrapped Rwanda, something which seems to have gone entirely uncommented upon by mainstream media.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
But 'smashing the criminal gangs'??
WHY IS THIS GOING TOTALLY UNREPORTED
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
It was on the radio this morning when I was walking to work.
Yeah, and Jenrick did a tweet, right?
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
So the BBC are obliged to report Jenrick's tweets?
Are you thick?
No, but I will concede that you're the most well placed judge of such things.
You've suggested, at the same time, that this might be a figment of Jenrick's imagination and managed to spectacularly miss the point at the same time. Either you're doing this deliberately to insult my intelligence, or you're thick.
Which one is it?
I suggest you work on your reading skills. You've obviously misread spectacularly.
You might have a point were it not for the fact that near scores of your fellow travellers posted upthread the primary source for the 700 crossings yesterday.
Comments
There are a number of separate strands at work here.
In terms of land which can be developed (classified as being able to be developed), the mark up on land having planning permission for residential redevelopment is substantial (tenfold at least if not more in town centres). Getting planning permission isn't always easy or cheap and some landowners might choose to sell on that risk (called taking the money and running).
Those who stay the course can reap the dividends but of course looking after and securing development land isn't cost free.
The other side of this is "green belt" land - the first thing that needs to happen is for the land to undergo a change of use which a local authority can do via the Local Plan. That has to go through a consultation process as normally all you can do on greenbelt land is build recreational facilities such as cricket pavilions or 19th holes etc.
Once the change of use is approved, then it's all systems go for resi redevelopment within the densities agreed in the local plan. I know some on loathe Planning with a healthy passion but the Local Plan is one of the most important documents produced by any council as it sets the framework for permitted development within an area.
If we really did get well over 700 people crossing yesterday then that's a totally open border and utterly unsustainable.
I'd prefer something more towards organic growth of communities to be expected at a modest rate.
(This is not investment advice.)
https://x.com/NationCymru/status/1823007143693357161
Not wanting to be banned - Last chance
Sparing us - the noisy bastard that wrecks an afternoon
The country will utterly collapse, financially, in a few years, unless the boats are stopped, if this maths is halfway accurate
Otherwise GenZ tuck in like everyone else in my experience.
I'm not saying steal for zero (as is common in India / China) I'm suggesting that the deal should be structured in a way where the farmer is paid for his inconvenience but not enough that he can retire to the Caribbean on the profits...
What does not seem reasonable is taking away land from someone and removing their source of income without proper compensation.
Actually this is not the worst of it. The real bad one (which is slightly off topic but still related) is the current situation that if you have a nice house worth, say, £500K and the Government decide to take it away, you get market value and a compensation of only £15K on top - which probably won't even cover your moving costs.
Again it seems to me that in this instance, as in so many others, the French have it right.
https://x.com/pt88193010/status/1823022358115823623?s=61
Everything I've seen says the French crackdown is encouraging the organisers to get people out ASAP while there are still a few boats available to transport people...
As to the detail, sure let's see. There's a balance to be struck. This is the UK we're talking about here. However I'd hope and expect that a Labour government wouldn't bend too far towards private landowners at the expense of the common good.
Or are you talking utter bullshit?
It's weird how Primrose Hill pubs don't get jammed, despite being lovely, whereas pubs 8 minutes away are grim and chocka. Something to do with it being hidden away behind the hill and the railways
Either way, no sign in this part of North London of pubs doing badly
You do know that Rwanda were only going to accept 200 people a year? It really wasn't a disincentive beyond not taking the first x boats in a year.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5VwvmRqZg
*For his deeply vanilla porn tastes. Nary a tractor involved.
Surely it couldn't be because MSM were happy to use illegal migration as a stick to beat the Tories with, but are damned if they want Starmer to suffer any bad press, surely?
Sorry, but that's an invasion.
Proving start of development is more tricky than it was.
But land coming forward is a disaggregated process, and the land owner will not do all of it.
There is Outline (with matters reserved) and Detailed. We sold ours with all matters reserved except the entrance road junction design, which went on a house we had kept for it to go through.
Land coming forward for development will typically have Outline (as any developer will have eg their own range of house designs and ways of doing everything) which *does* expire after 2 or 3 years. You can't "start development" on an Outline Permission (afaik), which just proves the site is accepted with 10 or so reports, and is to de-risk for the purchaser.
You *can* extend it by 2 years more if you put in a detailed application - but that then means the landowner has to pay for a shedload of detailed design work that won't be used. And if you don't get a yes on the detailed you are then really in a mess.
But then the Council will want another set of assessment fees, and there may be another 50-100% of professional fees.
And to lock it in there will be a whole portfolio of "Pre Start" conditions which have to be met, and possibly some things built, and accepted as met by the Council.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13734779/more-700-migrant-arrived-britain-sunday-channel.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/channel-crossing-migrant-death-small-boat-b2594961.html
https://www.itv.com/watch/news/more-than-700-migrants-arrived-in-uk-in-boats-yesterday-figures-show/vljbdtg
Those are some of the examples of the MSM covering it and there are more.
But 700 is that any different to the 686 that crossed in July 2023 when Rwanda was a threat?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/08/migrants-nearly-700-crossed-english-channel-uk-friday/
The new government hasn't had time yet to address the previous government's negligence in not processing asylum seekers.
🏠 Angela Rayner scraps plans to limit social housing applications to long-term British residents
https://x.com/TelePolitics/status/1822259655432720397
At what point do the British people realise that Labour actively HATES them, wants to make them poorer, and the country worse?
Now I know that isn't how it's being reported but the long term British residents criteria hasn't been tested in law and the advice was that it wouldn't stand up...
One of my friends told me they were interracial porn stars, I didn't believe him, but he showed me the photos, and there he was, black in white.
I honestly don't understand why anyone with options would willingly pay taxes to this government knowing that they are just gonna spunk it - £100 billion a year- on housing asylum seekers they actually seem KEEN to entice
It's nowhere on the BBC or The Times or other papers or bulletins of record.
Nowhere.
Surely it is a tribute to Brexit that so many people want to flee the EU?
They are demanding a withdrawal and UN intervention - against the Ukrainian aggression…..
If it's to actually understand the situation, of course you have to consider the weather.
If, for some reason, you want to work yourself into a fury, then of course you will pick the combination of numbers that helps you to increase your blood pressure.
The solution is probably twin-track: both international negotiation and domestic action at the same time.
I think Cummings was right: parts of the HRA need to be modified or repealed, sadly- the statute should not be deified if it's not working and is being abused- and the ECtHR should be told we will disapply it's judgements in certain areas. Then, the Royal Navy needs to repel or tow back boats, accepting there may well be casualties, until it stops.
My views have hardened in this area. We can't go on like this.
Except:
a) it's too many IMV.
b) It's an argument that should be used when talking about the previous government as well.
1) No one expects Labour to be tough on migration
2) It has already been a high profile issue, so it's not as newsworthy as it used to be (eg the big surge in Albanians happened a couple of years ago)
3) They haven't made reducing the boats the
mainsole objective of the government.Stride as a Rishi loyalist will likely pick up much of the Sunak loyalist vote, he will also pick up some of the One Nation liberal wing though most of that will go to Tugendhat. Cleverly I expect to pick up some of the Mordaunt vote from last time.
On zero evidence.
I'd love to see your reaction when the 'common good' goes against your own interests...
Depends what you want to do the comparison for.
If it's to actually understand the situation, of course you have to consider the weather.
If, for some reason, you want to work yourself into a fury, then of course you will pick the combination of numbers that helps you to increase your blood pressure.
++++
This year so far, crossings look set to match or exceed the previous record year, 2022, so it really is increasing
And as I've pointed out below, the landowners are *not* better off if the CPO value does not have any extra for the inconvenience.
But 'you don't care'. Because you are not affected.
I'm not affected either, but I can see beyond selfish interests such as yours.
It's in the Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/channel-crossing-migrant-death-small-boat-b2594961.html
It's in the Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/over-700-small-boat-arrivals-33446378
What reports was there when 711 arrived on 1st May 2024? Can you find even equal the amount of coverage? Even better, post when you mentioned it on here?
If the crossings continue as they are, or even worsen, we will go bankrupt. We cannot house and feed them all, nor can we simply wave them in and give them all asylum and let them work, because then even more will come, that will be a huge pull factor, and hundreds of millions are on the move
The only choice is your naval route, or something like Rwanda. Neither is easy, neither is pretty, but the eventual alternative will be even worse
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/5cede69b-a408-47eb-8933-31fb2813ab77
It might reassure Casino Royale a bit. 700 is a lot in one day but the previous 4 days brought 0,0,0 and 0 after a couple of days in the low hundreds. 700 a day is not the average, and it’s peak calm sea, warm weather crossing season.
700 is more like the weekly total in summer. In the week to 4 August there were 713 arrivals and 758 “prevented”, so the UK and French border forces aren’t just sitting on their arses.
There is a longer excel time series back to 2018 you can download. This summer’s arrivals so far (since the election) look similar to July/August 2023 and lower than 2022, but that’s just eyeballing so someone can run regressions on the numbers if they fancy.
In 2022 there were 6 days with arrivals over 1,000 people.
Note that in previous years crossings continued at high numbers into Sept and Oct so we are by no means near the end of the boat season yet.
And I know you've just gone googling and searching for them both. The leitmotif here is you want to brush the problem off and then go back to talking about other stuff.
If you have moderate right-wingers like me worried about this stuff, and starting to be drawn to firmer measures, then you know you've got a problem.
You've got a problem.
Let's imagine a massive resource is found on someone's land - not under, but on. Should they get zero compensation if the state decides to grab that resource?
And that's what we're talking about here: zero compensation.
I wonder how you would feel if your house was CPO'd by the council, and you only got the value of the house (with planning blight...) and nothing for the inconvenience and heartache that moving would cause you.
However Jenrick v Badenoch is very unlikely as they are both competing for the support of the ERG right of the party and only one of them will therefore likely get to the last 2.
Poor Priti seems to now have abandoned trying to get the ERG vote while still being too rightwing for the liberal One Nation wing who are rallying behind Tugendhat and Stride and who also prefer Cleverly to her
IDK, as an outsider Jenrick seems like he has the clearest message on needing to do things differently, having been out of government at the most senior level for 3 years. Kemi, Cleverly and Stride are all competing for the continuity of the last clique vote, as is Tugendhat despite not being very senior, and Patel's latest message is muddying the waters there too.
I don't think there's a legally pure or totally safe way of closing this down. And it pains me to say that.
1) Everyone now expects Labour to build homes and bring costs down
2) Home building at any scale is very unlikely to happen unless there is a post-war style splurge on council housing
3) Even if there is massive development, the shape of the demand curve for homes will mean there is only a marginal impact on costs, and building on the green belt won't change the underlying regional imbalances that make inner-city living so expensive for young people
Watch this space.
We had some success in getting the numbers down in 2023 largely because we returned Albanians to Albania, after an agreement, AIUI. But now that effect has faded away as others have replaced them
Which one is it?
The humane thing is to stop the boats at source, so no one bothers - and no one dies. But that means being quite tough, if only for a while. Like the Aussies
Do they understand what's coming if they don't engage with this issue, and sort it?
In reality, Labour is doing what it said it would do - quietly working away on solutions that will obviously take time to come to fruition. Personally I'm delighted it's making less news now - who didn't get sick of the constant STOP THE BOATS rhetoric in the tabloids, and the painfully inept salvation of 'Rwanda' as the solution?
I suspect many people are hoping for a period of calm, non-shouty government in which ministers take a more serious-minded approach to resolving the myriad of problems we have and, hopefully, deliver better results than the previous useless bunch.
You're on much stronger ground on criticising him for his other policies like VAT on school fees.
Parents scramble to find state school places to avoid VAT on fees
With tax on private school fees set to increase costs by 20 per cent from January next year, parents are struggling to find alternatives
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/parents-scramble-to-find-state-school-places-to-avoid-vat-on-fees-mc38hrzwn
Cedars School may close if parents cannot afford VAT costs
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24510319.cedars-school-may-close-parents-cannot-afford-vat-costs/
It's part of my thesis of how his coalition could collapse from both sides very quickly - like that horrible Titantic sub disaster- resulting in him being a one-term PM.
Labour will own this problem going forward. Given the previous governments utter negligence they have at least a possibility of doing better.
700. I mean, SEVEN HUNDRED IN A DAY.
I mean.. what the fuck?